Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Anyone using TomTom POI files for scenery
I just got to know the website of this tool: http://users.pandora.be/ceppe/projects/fgkicker.html I think it's worth being mentioned on the related websites section, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Anyone using TomTom POI files for scenery
jj wrote: I'd surely like to see an Observatory bulding (such as mine, see http://kingmont.com and ftp://kingmont.com for pictures of it). We have the model in the database for some days - does anyone bother refining a bit ? Please look here for a thumbnail: http://fgfsdb.stockill.org/modeledit.php?id=161 Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Anyone using TomTom POI files for scenery
jj wrote: I'd surely like to see an Observatory bulding (such as mine, see http://kingmont.com and ftp://kingmont.com for pictures of it). The Tower looks not _that_ realistic but still pretty nice in FlightGear - nevertheless I definitely think that we need a batch-able tool to determine ground elevation at a known location - or better a Perl module :-)) http://document.ihg.uni-duisburg.de/bitmap/FGFS/Observatory_01.jpg Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Anyone using TomTom POI files for scenery
John wrote: Regarding POI files - providing we can sort out the licensing implications I'm happy to write an import script to add them to the database in bulk. Ok John, I will try contacting some of the authors of those POI files and ask them permission to use them in this way. I will let you know the answers :-) Roberto -- DSL Komplett von GMX +++ Supergünstig und stressfrei einsteigen! AKTION Kein Einrichtungspreis nutzen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Anyone using TomTom POI files for scenery
Martin Spott wrote: Erik Hofman wrote: I made just this observatory model for him about a year back or so: FlightGear/data/Models/Structures/observatory.* I'll get this into the database. Do you have a screenshot (320x240) ? No, I've never had it included in the scenery myself. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Anyone using TomTom POI files for scenery
Erik wrote: I made just this observatory model for him about a year back or so: FlightGear/data/Models/Structures/observatory.* Gosh, I already offered JJ to build the observatory myself but as I see the model you made is really good. It just needs to be placed in the scenery :-) Anyway, I'd suggest to bring down the observatory.rgb coulour depth, it's 24bit but it needs ver few colours so the file would be smaller (42603 bytes for a 2bit/px image is too much :-) Or doing so is of no help for software/hardware performance at all? I don't know the internals of FGFS and PLIB so I guess (common sense) that reducing the colour depth of the texture files (if not strictly necessary) is still something good to do. Please let me know if I'm wrong because I generally tend using only 8bit/px bitmaps which is generally good enough for such 3d models. If not, I will go back on 24bit/px. Roberto -- Lassen Sie Ihren Gedanken freien Lauf... z.B. per FreeSMS GMX bietet bis zu 100 FreeSMS/Monat: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Anyone using TomTom POI files for scenery
Roberto Inzerillo wrote: Gosh, I already offered JJ to build the observatory myself but as I see the model you made is really good. It just needs to be placed in the scenery :-) Anyway, I'd suggest to bring down the observatory.rgb coulour depth, it's 24bit but it needs ver few colours so the file would be smaller (42603 bytes for a 2bit/px image is too much :-) Or doing so is of no help for software/hardware performance at all? I don't know the internals of FGFS and PLIB so I guess (common sense) that reducing the colour depth of the texture files (if not strictly necessary) is still something good to do. Please let me know if I'm wrong because I generally tend using only 8bit/px bitmaps which is generally good enough for such 3d models. If not, I will go back on 24bit/px. You're absolutely right, not only will it reduce texture memory, but also rendering speed if an unnecessary alpha layer gets removed. It's just that it's way too easy to save an alpha layer without the user noticing it :-/ Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: Anyone using TomTom POI files for scenery
* Erik Hofman -- Thursday 03 March 2005 11:49: Roberto Inzerillo wrote: Anyway, I'd suggest to bring down the observatory.rgb coulour depth, it's 24bit but it needs ver few colours so the file would be smaller (42603 bytes for a 2bit/px image is too much :-) You're absolutely right, not only will it reduce texture memory, but also rendering speed if an unnecessary alpha layer gets removed. This file isn't that big that it would save much disk space, but anyway: -rw-r- 1 m m 42603 Mar 3 12:15 observatory.rgb -rw-r- 1 m m 5120 Mar 3 12:16 observatory-bwa.rgb Both versions contain the exact same image information. The first one is in cvs, the second one was optimized. m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Anyone using TomTom POI files for scenery
Melchior wrote: This file isn't that big that it would save much disk space, but anyway: -rw-r- 1 m m 42603 Mar 3 12:15 observatory.rgb -rw-r- 1 m m 5120 Mar 3 12:16 observatory-bwa.rgb Both versions contain the exact same image information. The first one is in cvs, the second one was optimized. Of course Melchior, correcting this single case will not change any FGFS performance at all and disk space is so cheap that the overhead of those 37483 bytes costs around 0,00025 Euro Cents today. The question rose up because I try having some more knowledge about what is good and what not for developing 3d models. Correcting one single case is not usefull, but if I use 24bits instead of 8 for every model I will get a landscape package which grows (in bytes) 3 times faster whithout need. I simply try doing it right from the start and I like comments from outside. So I'm more happy with Erik's answer :-) and I will go on without too much bytes noise inside my models (when not strictly needed). Roberto -- Lassen Sie Ihren Gedanken freien Lauf... z.B. per FreeSMS GMX bietet bis zu 100 FreeSMS/Monat: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: Anyone using TomTom POI files for scenery
* Roberto Inzerillo -- Thursday 03 March 2005 14:10: Of course Melchior, correcting this single case will not change any FGFS performance at all and disk space is so cheap that the overhead of those 37483 bytes costs around 0,00025 Euro Cents today. Yes. Disk space isn't expensive these days. But it's also about bandwidth. The files don't magically appear on your cheap harddisk. ;-) To annoy you all even more. Here's the latest comparison: The directories Aircraft/, Models/, Scenery/, Textures/, and Textures.high/ once as they are in CVS, and once with all *.rgb, *.rgba, *.RGB optimized. Makes a difference of no less than 34.2 MB that we are wasting now with redundant information. This could be saved alone with better lossless compression, without changing the image information one bit. In the case of SGI files, you can't save anything with using less bits per pixel layer, because the SGI image formats that supported this are declared obsolete, and neither plib, nor blender, nor gimp, etc. can work with them. Internally, plib always uses one byte per pixel and layer. m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Anyone using TomTom POI files for scenery
jj wrote: I'd surely like to see an Observatory bulding (such as mine, see http://kingmont.com and ftp://kingmont.com for pictures of it). I got a nice reply after trying to contact you via private EMail: - Transcript of session follows - ... while talking to mail01.foothill.net.: DATA 550-5.7.1 Your message has been rejected by the DPE.NET SMTP Mail System. 550-5.7.1 This is the result of either you or your ISP having been 550-5.7.1 blocked as a spammer. If you believe this to be in error 550-5.7.1 please contact the below source or your ISP. Well, probably _you_ want to contact _your_ ISP - do you know how many EMails they already rejected ? Now, the purpose of my private EMail: In order to accurately place your observatory we'd like to get detailed information on the location and the size of this 'tower'. Thanks, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Anyone using TomTom POI files for scenery
Curtis L. Olson wrote: jj wrote: I'd surely like to see an Observatory bulding (such as mine, see http://kingmont.com and ftp://kingmont.com for pictures of it). Jim, if you send the coordinates of your house to Jon Stockill, he can place a grain silo there in the object database. The silo should match your house structure to within a couple inches. :-) This is actually a legitimate landmark since it as at the top of a hill overlooking a lake. (Sorry I'd not commented earlier in this thread - I've been away at a trade show for the last few days, and I'm just catching up on email) ISTR seeing an observatory building in the base package - if nobody's used it yet it won't be in the database though - we could add that for you though :-) Regarding POI files - providing we can sort out the licensing implications I'm happy to write an import script to add them to the database in bulk. -- Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Anyone using TomTom POI files for scenery
I don't recall ever seeing that model, or anythng referring to it! In any case, please accept my (belated) thanks for doing it!~ jj On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Erik Hofman wrote: Curtis L. Olson wrote: jj wrote: I'd surely like to see an Observatory bulding (such as mine, see http://kingmont.com and ftp://kingmont.com for pictures of it). Jim, if you send the coordinates of your house to Jon Stockill, he can place a grain silo there in the object database. The silo should match your house structure to within a couple inches. :-) This is actually a legitimate landmark since it as at the top of a hill overlooking a lake. I made just this observatory model for him about a year back or so: FlightGear/data/Models/Structures/observatory.* Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Anyone using TomTom POI files for scenery
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't recall ever seeing that model, or anythng referring to it! In any case, please accept my (belated) thanks for doing it!~ So, do you have accurate coordinates for this building ? Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Anyone using TomTom POI files for scenery
Melchior FRANZ wrote: True. You force me to become a bit more specific: [...] Your intention is clear, it's just that I don't share everyting of it. [...] I'm worried about *static* objects (as in OBJECT_STATIC) that consume 300kB each, and are only used *once* in the whole world (which by itself is OK), while looking so generic that they could be used for half of southern Europe, and being so small that you don't see them stand out between the random objects. In my opinion these models looking so generic that they could be used for half of southern Europe are definitely worth the effort building and distributing them for multiple reasons: 1.) Lots of people (alias 'potential users') simply like to have their home town populated with unique buildings - many of them run M$FS because someone's already been there and has created some nice add-ons to the scenery (we want this for advertizing !), 2.) 'landmarks' are not the only means of visual navigation, a pattern of buildings that stand out from the crowd can be useful as well (o.k., things are a bit more difficult in FlightGear than in real life because we have that dominant scenery texture), 3.) you are free to populate half of southern Europe from the models we currently have in the database ;-)) 4.) and, to be honest: FlightGear has already dedicated itself to head for being resource hungry at the point of time when untextured scenery display was being removed :-/ Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: Anyone using TomTom POI files for scenery
* Martin Spott -- Wednesday 02 March 2005 10:46: Your intention is clear, it's just that I don't share everyting of it. ... and you don't need to. Just keep the number of 512x512 textures as low as possible, especially for objects with reduced importance. Not everyone has a fast and cheap internet connection. Sigh ... m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Anyone using TomTom POI files for scenery
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 11:14, Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Martin Spott -- Wednesday 02 March 2005 10:46: Your intention is clear, it's just that I don't share everyting of it. ... and you don't need to. Just keep the number of 512x512 textures as low as possible, especially for objects with reduced importance. Not everyone has a fast and cheap internet connection. Sigh ... What we need is support for texture compression in flightgear and textures that are stored in such a way, in other words a file format that uses and supports texture compression. Not using texture compression is a waste of video memory. Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Anyone using TomTom POI files for scenery
Quoting Oliver C. : On Wednesday 02 March 2005 11:14, Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Martin Spott -- Wednesday 02 March 2005 10:46: Your intention is clear, it's just that I don't share everyting of it. ... and you don't need to. Just keep the number of 512x512 textures as low as possible, especially for objects with reduced importance. Not everyone has a fast and cheap internet connection. Sigh ... What we need is support for texture compression in flightgear and textures that are stored in such a way, in other words a file format that uses and supports texture compression. Not using texture compression is a waste of video memory. It shouldn't prevent modellers to be careful with texture size. I usually use big textures when modelling to help me position texture coordinates precisely but I reduce them when submitting the model. Anyway, at distance, you only see a reduced texture created by mipmap generation. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Anyone using TomTom POI files for scenery
jj wrote: I'd surely like to see an Observatory bulding (such as mine, see http://kingmont.com and ftp://kingmont.com for pictures of it). Jim, if you send the coordinates of your house to Jon Stockill, he can place a grain silo there in the object database. The silo should match your house structure to within a couple inches. :-) This is actually a legitimate landmark since it as at the top of a hill overlooking a lake. Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Anyone using TomTom POI files for scenery
Curtis L. Olson wrote: jj wrote: I'd surely like to see an Observatory bulding (such as mine, see http://kingmont.com and ftp://kingmont.com for pictures of it). Jim, if you send the coordinates of your house to Jon Stockill, he can place a grain silo there in the object database. The silo should match your house structure to within a couple inches. :-) This is actually a legitimate landmark since it as at the top of a hill overlooking a lake. I made just this observatory model for him about a year back or so: FlightGear/data/Models/Structures/observatory.* Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Anyone using TomTom POI files for scenery
Erik Hofman wrote: I made just this observatory model for him about a year back or so: FlightGear/data/Models/Structures/observatory.* I'll get this into the database. Do you have a screenshot (320x240) ? Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: Anyone using TomTom POI files for scenery populating?
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Tuesday 01 March 2005 18:39: * * Roberto Inzerillo -- Tuesday 01 March 2005 17:16: I am starting to build some 3d models of the most common gas stations and hotels around my city. Please consider contributing them to the database. Yes. But please concentrate on *landmarks*: Buildings and structures you actually see from an aircraft. Things that help with orientation and allow to recognize unique locations. Try not to waste megabytes with substandard appartment houses that 99,999% of people don't even find in the scenery if they *search* for them. :-} m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Anyone using TomTom POI files for scenery populating?
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Tuesday 01 March 2005 18:39: Please consider contributing them to the database. Yes. But please concentrate on *landmarks*: Buildings and structures you actually see from an aircraft. Things that help with orientation and allow to recognize unique locations. Try not to waste megabytes with substandard appartment houses that 99,999% of people don't even find in the scenery if they *search* for them. :-} Well, yeah, I agree, objects that are hard to spot aren't so helpful. But since the original poster's stated intent was to try to improve the VFR experience, I guess I presume he knows that. When you landed at KMDW on Runway 31 (I think), you used to fly right over a White Castle just before landing. That's something you wouldn't have picked out from a distance; but I'd love to see that in FG. And as a slight shift of topic, even if a structure's model doesn't really belong in the database, it may be useful in another way. We have generic 2-12 story random structures in FG -- but a small number of models of them, and so there's a lot of sameness. If a model seemed appropriate for such, I think it'd be great to add it to the shared models used for random structures, with appropriate adjustments of materials.xml coverage values to keep the total density of structures the same. Despite how boring the architecture of most mid-rise apartment buildings is today, they don't really all look alike, hehehe. -c ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Anyone using TomTom POI files for scenery
Melchior FRANZ wrote: Yes. But please concentrate on *landmarks*: Buildings and structures you actually see from an aircraft. Things that help with orientation and allow to recognize unique locations. Correct, but don't limit to landmarks only. Several remarkable/unique buildings alias eye candy at people's preferred location make a lot of sense as well. Look at our base package scenery - we would not need that many scyscrapers in SFO if our focus would be on landmarks only, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: Anyone using TomTom POI files for scenery
* Martin Spott -- Tuesday 01 March 2005 23:56: Melchior FRANZ wrote: Yes. But please concentrate on *landmarks*: Buildings and structures you actually see from an aircraft. Things that help with orientation and allow to recognize unique locations. Correct, but don't limit to landmarks only. Several remarkable/unique buildings alias eye candy at people's preferred location make a lot of sense as well. Look at our base package scenery - we would not need that many scyscrapers in SFO if our focus would be on landmarks only, True. You force me to become a bit more specific: I'm worried about *static* objects (as in OBJECT_STATIC) that consume 300kB each, and are only used *once* in the whole world (which by itself is OK), while looking so generic that they could be used for half of southern Europe, and being so small that you don't see them stand out between the random objects. I speak from personal experience: I searched for such a house and couldn't find it. Yet, I had to download it. A few such cases are no problem, but if this becomes a 200MB annoyance, someone has to pull the emergency brake. Which I'm trying to do. (And I admit that said houses look great in the screenshots -- which was the only way for me to see them at all. ;-) My personal priorities: (1) landmarks i.e.: tall, big and/or unique buildings/structures, bridges, radio towers etc. -- things that help you with orientation and make a flat and dull place at least remotely look like Paris, NY, Rome, ... (2) airport buildings (3) ... (n) static, two/three-storied appartment houses Hey, but any contribution is worth more than cheap talk or no contribution at all. So, don't let me discourage you. :-) m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
